Holy lack of understanding of what toxic masculinity and homophobia, Batman!
Okay where to start.
- One character being bi does not say bros can't be bros, and considering the history of fiction, that should be extremely obvious.
- A character being attracted to men, doesn't mean he can't have men as friends. He can even be friends with other gay men. Crazy, I know.
- Thinking that because someone is attracted to a certain gender, they can't be friends with someone of that gender, is problematic.
- Shipping of m/m ships is in no way problematic. It is no different then shipping of m/w ships. Making the former some sort of issue is actually problematic.
- Faux outrage about the collapse of bromance while we are finally starting to see the normalization of LGBTQIA relationships in different mediums is problematic.
Happy to go point by point:
It’s not a misunderstanding of what toxic masculinity is. A big problem with perceptions and portrayals of masculinity in the past has been that straight men are viewed as “weak” or “feminine” if they show love, tenderness, patience, etc. Basically any trait that wasn’t aggressive or stoic.
Men we’re viewed to be especially weak if they showed those types of feelings toward another man. Generations of fathers didn’t say “I love you” to their own sons because of this belief. It’s very real. This is a part of toxic masculinity. Men were told they needed to be “men”. And in this antiquated way of thinking, being a “men” was tied to all that outdated tough guy machismo stuff - where men aren’t allowed to show a full spectrum of emotions.
Second point: No one is saying that Tim being made LGTBQ means that “bros can’t be bros.” I’m saying that he seems to have been chosen because he has deep relationships with other male characters. This is a trend that some fans have shown with other characters (Steve and Bucky, Po and Finn, etc). I understand the impulse. There is a hunger for more representation. And there needs to be more representation. But the idea that, “This straight character is non-romantically very close with this straight character … let’s put them together romantically” is a bad one. Just because two straight men are very close friends doesn’t mean they will become romantically involved - it’s pretty problematic to demand that they do. Just like it’s problematic to suggest a straight character can “turn” a gay character. This assumes preference and not orientation.
Your third point we agree on. That’s my point. The reasons justifying Tim being LGBTQ confirm that problematic way of thinking:
He can’t possibly be this close to male characters without being gay and romantically interested in one of them …
“Shipping” of m/m or f/f IS problematic if the characters in question aren’t LGBTQ. Would be the same if fans were demanding to see a gay character with a character of their opposite sex. Again, it’s orientation not preference. Preference suggests that there’s a choice on the character’s part to steer their sexuality. I’m pretty sure that type of thinking went out a while ago and now we accept that people are born with their particular orientation, whatever it happens to be.
Again, this isn’t outrage over “the collapse of the bromance.” This is pointing out that demanding any two males who show affection for each other have to become romantically involved is deeply flawed and problematic. Men should be able to show any and all emotions, and those emotions shouldn’t be reserved only for non-straight men. Yes, we are in an age where LGBTQ characters are becoming normalized. And a small part of the reason for that acceptance is the progress made by a lot of folks in trying to get rid of toxic masculinity. But sending the message that loving another man and having a deep affection for him isn’t something straight men do … contributes to that toxic masculinity. Plain and simple.
-R